CEO’s program operated smoothly during the study period, and most
program group members received the core services.
Table 2.1 presents data on program group members’ participation in CEO’s core activi ties. The participation data in the table, drawn from CEO’s management information systems, cover all participation that occurred within three years of random assignment. Almost all program participation occurred in the months immediately after random assignment, though a small number of participants may have left the program and returned at a later time. Program tracking and payroll data show that 76 percent of the program group completed the initial five- day preemployment class and that about 71 percent worked in a CEO transitional job for at least one day. The average time spent in transitional employment was about nine weeks, which generally occurred over about four months of engagement with the program.8 Among program
group members who worked in a transitional job, about 91 percent also met with CEO job coaches or job developers at least once (not shown in the table). On average, participants who worked in a transitional job met about four times with each of these staff. About 44 percent of those who worked in a transitional job (31 percent of the full program group) were placed into permanent jobs, according to CEO’s records.
The program group was more likely than the control group to receive
specific kinds of employment services, but many control group members got help with job search at CEO or elsewhere; some control group members worked in transitional jobs at other organizations.
As described above, CEO offered some help with basic job search assistance to control group members, but CEO’s core program components — including transitional jobs and job development services — were offered only to program group members. In addition to the services that CEO offered to research sample members, it was expected that members from both
7Very few study sample members had any contact with a CEO retention specialist because this aspect of
the program was implemented so late in the study period.
8It is important to note that “weeks worked” may not be consecutive and is not measured by calendar time.
The variable is created by summing the total number of days worked in a CEO job after random assignment and dividing that by 4 because participants worked four days per week in CEO’s transitional jobs at the time of the study.
The Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration
Table 2.1
Program Group’s Participation in CEO Activities Center for Employment Opportunities
Outcome Program Group
Completed life skills/preemployment class (%) 76.0
Ever worked a CEO transitional job (%) 70.5
Weeks worked in a CEO transitional joba (%)
Never worked in a CEO transitional job 29.5
Less than 1 week 5.2
1-4 weeks 18.0
5-12 weeks 28.0
13-24 weeks 15.1
More than 24 weeks 4.3
Days between random assignment date and start of CEO transitional job (%)
Never worked in a CEO transitional job 29.5
0-7 days 47.5
8-14 days 15.3
More than 14 days 7.8
Met with a job coach (%) 59.4
Met with a job developer (%) 56.5
Placed in an unsubsidized jobb (%) 31.3
Among those who worked in a CEO transitional jobc
Weeks worked in a CEO transtitional joba (%)
Less than 1 week 7.3
1-4 weeks 25.6
5-12 weeks 39.7
13-24 weeks 21.4
More than 24 weeks 6.1
Average weeks worked in a CEO transitional job 8.9
Average number of meetings with job coach 4.4
Average number of meetings with job developer 4.0
Placed in an unsubsidized jobb (%) 43.6
Program placement 34.8
Self-placement 11.7
22
Table 2.1 (continued)
SOURCE: MDRC calculations from CEO's management information system (MIS).
NOTES: This table reflects program participation and CEO employment between January 2004 and October 2010. There were nine control group members (2.2 percent) who worked in CEO during the follow-up period. CEO outcomes for these control group members are not shown in the table.
aIt is important to note that weeks worked may not be consecutive but includes a total of weeks worked after an individual's random assignment date. This variable is created by taking total days worked in CEO and dividing by 4 because participants work four days per week in CEO and attend job coaching or other CEO services on the fifth day.
bThis includes unsubsidized employment placements by CEO staff and self-placement employment that CEO was made aware of or that the client reported to CEO.
cA total of 412 program group participants worked in a CEO transitional job.
research groups might seek out assistance from other organizations in the community. Thus, one would not necessarily expect to see large differences between groups in the receipt of basic job search assistance.
The client survey, which was administered to 531 sample members an average of 20 months after study entry, included many questions about the services that sample members received through CEO or other organizations. Table 2.2 shows the impacts on program participa- tion and service receipt based on responses to the client survey. Not surprisingly, the program group was substantially more likely to receive some kinds of employment help, such as referrals to specific job openings — the kind of help provided by CEO job developers; 32 percent of the program group and 19 percent of the control group reported receiving such a referral. In other areas, however, such as advice about filling out job applications or résumé building, the differ- ences between groups are much smaller because many control group members received these services from CEO or another organization. Although very few control group members worked in a transitional job at CEO, some worked in similar jobs at other organizations. It is difficult to determine precisely how many control group members worked in such jobs, however, because survey responses on this topic do not appear to be accurate.
In addition to providing employment services and transitional jobs to program group members, CEO staff provided support and guidance to address issues that could prevent clients from successfully reentering the community and the workforce. As shown in the bottom portion of Table 2.2, program group members were significantly more likely than the control group to report that they had received advice and support about things like how to behave on the job and
The Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration
Table 2.2
Impacts on Participation and Service Receipt Center for Employment Opportunities
Program Group Control Group Difference (Impact) Outcome (%) P-Value
Participated in any job search, education,
or training activity 67.9 64.3 3.6 0.400
Participated in a job search activity 60.6 58.9 1.6 0.709
Group job search/readiness 50.7 51.8 -1.2 0.798
Individual job search 31.2 21.3 9.9 ** 0.012
Participated in an education/training activity 26.5 29.1 -2.6 0.515 Adult basic education/GED/ESL classes 10.4 10.2 0.1 0.962
College courses 4.4 4.7 -0.3 0.883
Vocational training 10.6 10.6 -0.1 0.977
Other 13.4 13.9 -0.5 0.867
Received employment services 82.5 78.9 3.6 0.295
Referral to specific job opening 32.3 18.8 13.5 *** 0.001
Advice about job interviews 64.6 56.3 8.4 * 0.054
Advice about discussing criminal history with
potential employers 69.1 60.7 8.4 ** 0.044
Advice about how to behave on a job 66.4 55.9 10.6 ** 0.013 Names of people to contact about jobs 29.7 22.6 7.1 * 0.076
Help putting a résumé together 57.7 60.0 -2.3 0.611
Advice about filling out job applications 58.5 53.8 4.7 0.285 Can turn to someone on staff for advice and support
with personal or family issues 40.5 30.8 9.7 ** 0.024
Sample size (total = 531) 316 215
SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on responses to the client survey. For more information about the survey and response rates, refer to the interim report (Redcross et al. 2009).
NOTES: Results in this table are weighted by week of random assignment and adjusted for pre-random assignment characteristics.
Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. GED = General Educational Development.
24
about personal and family issues. This kind of support could have come from any type of CEO staff, but it likely occurred as part of the hands-on job coaching provided by work site supervi- sors while participants were on the work crew.
For additional results from the client survey, see the two-year report from this study.9
9Redcross et al. (2009).
Chapter 3